Agenda item

To determine a private hire/hackney carriage driver's application.

The Licensing and Compliance Officer gave a summary of the report. The applicant had declared an offence of common assault in 2013 on his application form.

The applicant explained that he had attended a friend’s work Christmas party and at the end of the night got a taxi home with his friend and three other men who had also been at the party, but who he did not know. During the journey one of the three men started to taunt him and this led on to a physical attack. Having first tried to cover up his head the applicant eventually fought back to try and defend himself. The case went to Colchester magistrates Court where the applicant was found guilty of common assault due to “acting in self- defence but using excessive force”.

The applicant said it was a regrettable incident. He considered himself a family man and would like this additional opportunity to provide for his family. The taxi driver had testified to say that he was defending himself.

In response to a Member question, the applicant said his friend did not testify as he had a conflict of interest because he knew the attacker in the incident.

At 12.45, the Panel retired to make its decision.

At 12.55, the Panel returned. The decision was read to the applicant.

DECISION NOTICE

The application before the Panel today is the applicant’s application for a joint hackney carriage/PHV driver’s licence.  If successful, he has an offer of employment from London Stansted Chauffeurs Ltd.

We have had the opportunity of reading the officer’s report in this case, a copy of which has been served on the applicant, and we have also seen, as has he, the background documents annexed thereto, including an enhanced DBS Certificate dated 7^th October 2019 confirming a conviction for an offence of violence, declared by the applicant as being one of common assault. In fact the conviction was for an offence of battery under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 dated 9^th May 2013 in respect of an offence taking place the preceding Christmas and for which the applicant was fined £625.

Whilst this conviction is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 this legislation does not apply to proceedings before this Committee and the applicant does not meet the Council’s suitability policy for new drivers which states at point 2.14 – “Where an applicant has a conviction for an offence of violence, or connected with any offence of violence, a licence will not be granted until at least 10 years have elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed”.

The applicant was to provide further information about the conviction and he responded by e-mail on 12 August. A copy is before us. The applicant explained that he had attended a friend’s work Christmas party and at the end of the night got a taxi home with his friend and three other men who had also been at the party, but who he did not know. During the journey one of the three men started to taunt him and this led on to a physical attack.  Having first tried to cover up his head the applicant defended himself.

At that point, the taxi driver stopped the vehicle and told the passengers that he could not continue the journey unless they stopped fighting. The journey then continued without any further problems. The applicant got home and went to bed, but was woken up at 4am by the police knocking at the door and arresting him for assault. The case went to Colchester Magistrates Court where the applicant was found guilty of common assault due to “acting in self- defence but using excessive force”.  He was open about the conviction at his interview on 12 August and declared it on his application form. He states that he was shocked to have been found guilty and would have appealed the decision had he been able to afford it; he had never been in trouble before this conviction and has had no convictions since 2013.

The applicant is a qualified football coach and swimming teacher and has spent a lot of time trying to have a positive impact on young people’s lives through sport. He is also a qualified pool lifeguard and first aid trainer. He has no motoring offences.

In line with UDC policy the applicant’s application was referred to the Environmental Health Manager (Commercial) to determine in consultation with the Chair of the Licensing and Environmental Committee. The decision was made to request the applicant to present himself to Committee to give a fuller account of the circumstances that resulted in his conviction and to allow Committee to gain a greater insight into the applicant’s character. We are mindful of  para1.6 of the policy which states ‘each case will always be considered on its merits having regard to the policy, and the licensing authority can depart from the policy where it considers it appropriate to do so.’

We have heard from the applicant and though we all agree the facts of this case are somewhat unusual we note his contrition and that he has not been in trouble since.  We also note that the declared the conviction in his application, that he is very active among the young people in his local community and that he is otherwise of good character.  We are therefore prepared to grant this application and trust that he will never appear before us again.